Is it Possible to Beat a Beam of Light and Shake Hands with Yourself?

  • Thread starter eNathan
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Ftl
In summary: Except for the case of a light beam getting stuck inside a black hole I do not see that that is obvious at all.Take a simple case like of a light beam coming from a far away nebula passing our sun and going toward us. Yes it is true that from our perspective the beam slows down due to the sun's gravity, but is there a faster path?Yes, there can be. If you take a path that goes around the sun (in the sense of "around" used by a person looking down from above the solar system), you might very well be able to get to the same point in space at the same time as the light beam did. That is, your
  • #1
eNathan
352
2
As a preface to my question, I am in no way asserting a FTL posibility which violates the posulates of Special Relativity. Throughout several online articles and books that I have been reading, there has been a referance to some sort of warping of spacetime that allows you to, in their words, "beat a light beam". This involves the warping of spacetime, expressed in an analogy of "cutting a sheet of paper into a cone".

However I still do not 'fully' understand this concept, it is to my knowledge that, according to the book (which was written by a prinston professor), "you can travel through the light cone, beat a beam of light, and come back to Earth and shake hands with yourself." That's not an exact quote, and I can give you more exact references to what was said in the book if you would like.

Originally, I thought that you beat the light beam and hence you were able to merly see yourself take off. But by him asserting that you can shake hands with yourself as you begin to take off, he must be stating that yourself in the past is a physiclly existing entity, and not just light beams that you are seeing.

So which one is it :rolleyes:: merly seeing the light photons carrying the information of "you taking off", or physiclly co-existing with your past-self and hence being able to "shake your hand before take off"?

Thanks in advance,
~eNathan
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
When people talk about "beating a light beam," they (rather surprisingly) are not talking about going faster than the speed of light.

Imagine if you had a region of space severely warped by the presence of some very small, very massive object. The usual example is a "cosmic string," which is a essentially a hypothetical object that is essentially a very thin "line" of very dense matter.

If you shine a light beam across the gravitational well created by this very thin string, the light will potentially take a very long time to get across the well. (Remember that time appears to run more slowly deep in a gravitational well, so you, on the outside, would consider the light to be moving through the well very slowly).

You, at the outskirts of the gravitational well, are less effected. In some situations, you could actually go around the circumference of the well in less time (according to your watch) that the light took going straight across it.

In analogy, consider two ants trying to get from one side of the rim of a bowl to the other. One ant goes down through the bowl's center and up the other side, while the other ant just walks around the rim. For bowls of a certain shape, the circumferential journey will take less time than the straight-across journey.

This doesn't break general relativity, because general relativity doesn't say you can't beat a light beam through a severely curved region of space by judicious choice of path. General relativity only says that you cannot beat the speed of light locally.

If you fire a beam of light in one direction, and then walk another direction, general relativity certainly permits the possibility of getting to some given destination point in less time than the light.

None of this can be used for time travel to the past, though.

Imagine that you fire up a video projector and send its light through a severely curved region of space so that it eventually arrives at a screen a long way away. Imagine that you let the projector run for a half hour, then take the "shortcut," arriving at the screen via a different, faster route than the light went. When you get to the screen, you might see the movie playing from, say, the opening scene -- even though you already let the projector run for 30 minutes. That's the sort of "time travel" you can achieve with this method. You're definitely not really traveling backwards in time -- you're just outrunning the light.

- Warren
 
  • #3
chroot said:
This doesn't break general relativity, because general relativity doesn't say you can't beat a light beam through a severely curved region of space by judicious choice of path. General relativity only says that you cannot beat the speed of light locally.

If you fire a beam of light in one direction, and then walk another direction, general relativity certainly permits the possibility of getting to some given destination point in less time than the light.
Well Warren I am not so sure about that, would you care to give some support for those assertions?

Basically you are saying that in GR it is possible that there exists a space-time topology where a sub lightspeed non geodesic path from A to B can outrun a light beam going from A to B.

Except for the case of a light beam getting stuck inside a black hole I do not see that that is obvious at all.

Take a simple case like of a light beam coming from a far away nebula passing our sun and going toward us. Yes it is true that from our perspective the beam slows down due to the sun's gravity, but is there a faster path? Something could go around the influence of the sun's gravity but that means a longer path so more time, furthermore such a path is at sub lightspeed, so how does it add up to be the faster path?
Yes you could argue that the curvature in this example is weak, but the stronger the curvature the longer the path we have to take to avoid its influence.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Well, MeJennifer, you better brush up on your relativity, because the only "speed of light" that is well defined is the local speed of light, and it's the local speed of light that you cannot surpass.

Basically you are saying that in GR it is possible that there exists a space-time topology where a sub lightspeed non geodesic path from A to B can outrun a light beam going from A to B.

That's not what I said.

Relativity certainly does not preclude there being two or more geodesics, in the same region of spacetime, connecting the same two events, yet one longer than the other. This freedom is also the basis of wormholes, which are certainly permissible in the theory.

If you care to demonstrate mathematically how such situations are not admissible, I'd love to see you try.

The clearest discussion I've found in a few moments of searching is this one: http://ls.poly.edu/~jbain/philrel/philrellectures/16.TimeMachines2.pdf#search=%22cosmic%20string%20time%20travel%20beat%20light%22 [Broken]

It was written by a university professor, yet not a well-known one. The more general concept of time travel with cosmic string is known as the "Gott Loop," and you can find tons of references on the web.

- Warren
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
chroot said:
Relativity certainly does not preclude there being two or more geodesics, in the same region of spacetime, connecting the same two events, yet one longer than the other. This freedom is also the basis of wormholes, which are certainly permissible in the theory.
Correct, but you claim that the one going around the gravitational field can get there sooner, which by the way means that they are not connected by the same two events.
You fail to explain how if the one going around the gravitational field goes through less curvature than the other light beam. If the one going around travels on a geodesic it obviously goes through a rather curved region of space.

chroot said:
If you care to demonstrate mathematically how such situations are not admissible, I'd love to see you try.
I see, you make the claim and you want me to disprove it.
How about you showing a simple example where you can demonstrate what you say is correct.

chroot said:
The clearest discussion I've found in a few moments of searching is this one: http://ls.poly.edu/~jbain/philrel/philrellectures/16.TimeMachines2.pdf#search=%22cosmic%20string%20time%20travel%20beat%20light%22 [Broken]
Yes but your argument was specifically against time travel here remember.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
MeJennifer said:
Correct, but you claim that the one going around the gravitational field can get there sooner, which by the way means that they are not connected by the same two events.

No, it doesn't.

You fail to explain how if the one going around the gravitational field goes through less curvature than the other light beam. If the one going around travels on a geodesic it obviously goes through a rather curved region of space.

Look at the spacetime diagram shown in the pdf I linked.

How about you showing a simple example where you can demonstrate what you say is correct.

I explained it, gave a reference which explains it very clearly, and provided the common name of the idea -- the Gott loop. What on Earth else could I provide you? I didn't make it up -- it's a well-known conclusion.

Yes but your argument was specifically against time travel here remember.

No, my argument was against the assertion that you cannot beat a beam of light, and against that assertion that beating a beam of light means you're traveling through time. Neither assertion is, in fact, true -- at least, not in a unique type of curved spacetimes.

- Warren
 

1. How does FTL travel work?

FTL (Faster Than Light) travel is a concept in science fiction that allows for travel at speeds faster than the speed of light. The most commonly accepted theory for FTL travel is the use of a hypothetical device called a "warp drive", which compresses space in front of a ship and expands it behind the ship, allowing it to travel faster than light.

2. Is FTL travel possible in real life?

Currently, there is no scientific evidence or technology that supports the possibility of FTL travel. The laws of physics as we currently understand them do not allow for objects to travel faster than the speed of light. However, there are ongoing research and theoretical studies exploring the potential for FTL travel.

3. What are the potential dangers of FTL travel?

The potential dangers of FTL travel are largely unknown, as it is a concept that has not been achieved in real life. However, some theories suggest that it could have consequences such as time dilation, causing a person traveling at FTL speeds to experience time differently compared to those on Earth.

4. How would FTL travel impact space exploration?

If FTL travel were to become a reality, it would significantly impact space exploration by allowing us to travel to distant planets and galaxies in a much shorter amount of time. This could potentially open up new possibilities for discovering and studying other worlds and civilizations.

5. Are there any ethical implications of FTL travel?

As with any new technology, there could be ethical implications of FTL travel. Some potential concerns include the impact on the environment or other civilizations that we may encounter while traveling at such high speeds. It is important for scientists and researchers to consider these ethical implications as they continue to explore the concept of FTL travel.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
5
Replies
145
Views
12K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
46
Views
7K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
23
Views
8K
Back
Top